It's a very difficult question, because the answer depends too much upon circumstance and upon the customary usages of the society within which the matter occurs.
On a personal level, I could see a circumstance where I could render honorable service to a... ...OK, lets use the term "prince" here, in the sense that Machiavelli used it, for lack of anything better... ...prince who had lost his own honor, as long as that prince did not require ME to act in a manner contrary to mine own honor.
But, by way of a valid counterexample, in Tokugawa-era Japan, if a daimyo rebelled against or otherwise betrayed his overlord, his vassals were perceived as having been tainted by his dishonor, and in general had the alternatives of either committing seppuku or becoming ronin, because other lords would be unwilling to take such tainted warriors into their service.
The Romans evidently felt that a leaders acts could taint his followers: a legion or smaller unit (cohort, maniple, or century,) which exhibited cowardice in the face of the enemy might find its commander executed and its troops facing decimation: the selection by lot of one soldier in ten for execution, the executions to be carried out by their surviving comrades.
But in Korea in 1950, the US Army just took such units, gave them new officers, and put their former officers to work offloading ships at Pusan. As Napoleon once observed "There are no bad regiments; there are only bad colonels."
Context is important.
And to put things into an entirely different perspective: if one believes that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal, does that make every one of the soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen who participated in that operation a war criminal?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 05:40 am (UTC)On a personal level, I could see a circumstance where I could render honorable service to a... ...OK, lets use the term "prince" here, in the sense that Machiavelli used it, for lack of anything better... ...prince who had lost his own honor, as long as that prince did not require ME to act in a manner contrary to mine own honor.
But, by way of a valid counterexample, in Tokugawa-era Japan, if a daimyo rebelled against or otherwise betrayed his overlord, his vassals were perceived as having been tainted by his dishonor, and in general had the alternatives of either committing seppuku or becoming ronin, because other lords would be unwilling to take such tainted warriors into their service.
The Romans evidently felt that a leaders acts could taint his followers: a legion or smaller unit (cohort, maniple, or century,) which exhibited cowardice in the face of the enemy might find its commander executed and its troops facing decimation: the selection by lot of one soldier in ten for execution, the executions to be carried out by their surviving comrades.
But in Korea in 1950, the US Army just took such units, gave them new officers, and put their former officers to work offloading ships at Pusan. As Napoleon once observed "There are no bad regiments; there are only bad colonels."
Context is important.
And to put things into an entirely different perspective: if one believes that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal, does that make every one of the soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen who participated in that operation a war criminal?